Church of Scientology Proposes Net Censorship In Australia 464
An anonymous reader writes "Submitted by the Australian branch of Scientology to the local Human Rights Commission is a proposal to eliminate anonymity on the net and the removal of critical websites (MS Word document).
The submission is listed as #1931 at this page at the Australian Human Rights Commission." (Read on below for some of the details of what the Scientologists propose.)
"SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1: The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification. Recommendation 2: Restriction on Anonymity on acts of Religious Vilification: 2.1 Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification shall be removed or their access to the Australian public restricted. 2.2 Creators of websites whose primary purpose is the incitement of religious vilification shall be prevented from concealing their identity. Recommendation 3: Restriction on Religious Misinformation and
Misrepresentation known or reasonably known to be untruthful in the Media
Recommendation 4: Include a form of Bill or Charter of Rights into the Australian Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth from making any law, which 'directly, indirectly or incidentally' prohibits the free exercise of religion to the extent of such prohibition."
So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are there any Scientologists in the Australian govt? And does this just happen to coincide with Tom's recent visit down-under?
Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientology is a dangerous cult
Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientologists have never been too fond of freedom of speech. Hurts their profit margins.
Critical? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm not accusing the Co$ of anything, but if I was a group that uses heavy peer pressure and the fact that as a group I have vastly more resources than any individual, monetary and time-wise, I'd certainly want anonymity stripped away so I know which individuals I'd have to silence to send out a message to other individuals.
I just wish they'd do something like this in Europe. It would do a huge service towards net anonymity, considering how many governments react to pretty much anything the Cult spews.
Dangerous reading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone reading Scientology material becomes pretty much immune against their brainwash. Its more like a very badly written sci-fi novel than anything else. Letting people read it in a safe enviroment makes recruting more cultists so much harder.
The only way to get rid of stupid cults like Scientology, Christianity and the like is to expose them freely and put them against real knowledge and science. Religion has no place in a modern society.
Re:Good luck mate (Score:5, Insightful)
Though Labor and the religiots are committed to forcing through a national censorship infrastructure. If that's in place, expanding what is restricted is a matter of mere administrative fiat, no troublesome democratic debate required.
Thankfully, the firewall plan seems to have trouble getting the numbers in the Senate, and the fiasco of the recent technical trials (deemed a "success" by the government with no actual objective criteria having been cited and scant detail) is unlikely to help. Hearing that Tom Cruise's crazy friends want to use it to stamp out criticism of them probably won't be any more helpful.
(MS Word document) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As an Australian (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, that's the core of the scientology "religion". You should know this.
And yes, it is indeed the fevered mumblings of a burnt-out science fiction author who has indulged in too much alcohol and too many prescription painkillers.
Re:As an Australian (Score:4, Insightful)
with a hidden, apparrently gnaa, sub-troll
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
You were doing fine until you veered into haterland by including Christianity "and the like".
History is replete with examples of people converted to Christianity simply by reading the Bible on their own without outside influence.
(simply Google "Converts to Christianity" You will find many converted simply by gaining access to a Bible written in their language.)
Judaism and Islam have similar examples.
Scientology has none. This is one of the hallmarks of a true cult; They win no converts outside of their brainwashing, and their "scriptures" are nonsense to anyone outside the group.
While some atheists might describe some mainstream religious texts as "nonsense", the vast majority of people, regardless of their belief, would not.
Stop being a hater miffo.swe. You are free to believe or not as you wish. But don't go lumping the major religions in with cults like Scientology
Re:Good luck mate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does this affect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:5, Insightful)
I went the other way... I read the bible and became a non-christian! I've also got the Koran and the Torah in my collection, and I'm not Muslim nor Jew.
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Stop being a hater miffo.swe. You are free to believe or not as you wish. But don't go lumping the major religions in with cults like Scientology"
I dare to lump all the major religions in with scientology. Christianity beat Scientology any day if you look at it historically. A more brutal conversion than the one from hedonism to christianity is hard to find. Cult is a bit too nice of a wording for how most of our religions have come to be. You carry on closing your eyes and dont whatever you do read any history.
Re:What I don't get is... (Score:2, Insightful)
For the same reason a church has lightning rods on it.
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:3, Insightful)
My sincere thanks, CoS. (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks, CoS, for being the Jack Thompson of the Australian internet censorship debate.
People who support the censoring of the net in Australia are now aligning themselves with the CoS. In every debate which occurs from this date forward, we can link the pro-censorship camp to the CoS and all their inanity. All the repressive future possibilities of the implementation of internet censorship have graduated from mere conjecture by "paranoids" to an actively pursued agenda by a religious organisation.
It is there in writing. The future we fear under a regime of censorhip, being actively pursued for all to see. We may have been called tin-foil hatters or paranoid delusionists, but we were right. More importantly, we've been proven right while it's still not too late to stop it.
This is a great day for anti-censorship campaigners.
CoS, we can hardly thank you enough.
Well, I see no possible self interest here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless we all lost our minds and considered Scientology as some sort of religion, rather than a group of Heinlein fanboys who took it waaaaaay too far, none of these would benefit them.
So, nothing to see here, just another Modest Proposal to keep the Kids(tm) safe.
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem any new cult has today is that science has provided a lot of answers which contradict the religious versions, and of course religion being "the word of God" it can't be revised. Modern cults like Scientology are all fighting against a modern backdrop that people have long seen through the bullshit the major religions spew out in an effort to control their sheep, as well as a million and one documentaries and fictional stories about cults, scams and rackets.
In other words they came late to the party, all the gullible people are taken and all they have left are those who pour scorn or ridicule over their claims.
Religions or their underdeveloped little brothers the Cults all have one aim, control. They seek to be the gatekeeper between their God and the believer. They manipulate people's emotions to get and maintain that control. They claim to offer spiritual and therefor unverifiable rewards to those who allow themselves to be controlled, and punish those who seek to either disrupt that control, or seek to escape it. All religions and cults have illogical "truths" told in fictional stories a 5 year old could write better with less plot holes. All religions entrench the leadership in unchallengeable potions.
What many seem to forget is belief in God, is different from considering oneself part of any religion or cult. Many people have seen the damage religion and it's followers have done to the planet and it's inhabitants and can't bare to be associated with it. That does not stop them believing in God. They can see religion for what it is, a man made manipulative organization using an unverifiable connection to God as the hook which amounts to "do what we say, in return we'll ask God to help you out, we have a direct line to him you know. We can't of course teach you how to do that for yourself as we're his special ones."
A couple of quotes spring to mind:
"God, please protect me from your followers"
"Every day more and more people are giving up religion and returning to God"
Re:What I don't get is... (Score:3, Insightful)
For the same reason why you need an appointment when you go to a clairvoyant.
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:5, Insightful)
While some atheists might describe some mainstream religious texts as "nonsense", the vast majority of people, regardless of their belief, would not.
Argumentum ad populum. Would Scientology be true, if lots more people believed it?
And actually, you're wrong anyway - since there are several different religions with inconsistent views, religious people would still view other religions as wrong (often with a greater zeal than any atheist - e.g., Christians who preach that non-Christians will go to hell), and therefore any given religion still has a majority who don't believe in it. So for example, there may be about 2 billion Christians, but the "vast majority" still don't believe in Christianity.
But yes, I do agree with you - the only difference between cults and religions are how many people believe in it.
But don't go lumping the major religions in with cults like Scientology
In the context of laws like this, trying to argue against it by saying Scientology isn't a religion is a dangerous tactic - it means the law is still considered justified for religions. I think it's a bad law all round.
Summary of Document (Score:5, Insightful)
Recommendation 1: Make it illegal to make fun of us so that we have legal grounds to sue.
Recommendation 2: Eliminate Anonymity on the internet so that we know who we can sue.
Recommendation 3: Stop letting the media make fun of us or we will sue.
Recommendation 4: Make a law so that you can not tax us when we sue.
Everybody should be posting on this article Anonymously by the way
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a religion. That's what is evil about it.
I don't see how believing that "a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree" is any saner than the Xenu story.
The dangerous part about Scientology is that they are still in the early stages of religion, and are not yet hypocrites and live by the letter of their religion. A fundie who lived by the Bible would rape [evilbible.com], kill [evilbible.com], and enslave [evilbible.com]: reproachable behaviours in any civilised society, yet they are the Word of God®.
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's ok to believe in something harebrained because your neighbor does too? And my imaginary friend is way cooler than yours and can beat him up any time!
Rather the contrary, I was more on the line of that neither is ok, and that if one considers only one or a few as being ok he/she is rather self centered.
Wrong, just wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
They say that everything in the media and promoted by anonymous is slander but truth is a defense; have they put forward any evidence to contradict what has been said that's not propaganda or are we just meant to take their world for it; we wouldn't have half the current affairs shows we have if organizations had to give their ok beforehand (not necessarily a bad thing tho more time for proper news), If it is only those that are against the organization that are willing to speak you cannot discredit them without speaking out yourself just buy saying no there wrong. You get reputations for a reason and attempting to silence opposition through law will not have the effect of changing opinion; indeed it could only solidify it, only truth can do that through transparency and credibility; and sanity helps.
Probably not the most helpful or coherent post but aw.
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:3, Insightful)
A couple of quotes spring to mind:
"God, please protect me from your followers"
"Every day more and more people are giving up religion and returning to God"
I prefer this version:
"I have no problem with God. It's his fan club I can't stand"
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because it happened historically doesn't mean that it's still happening, or that it was the main thrust of the functioning of that religion in the past.
The Catholic church's genocidal position on condom use is happening right now and is a core part of the religion.
The net censorship in Australia is driven by religious ideology. Bad ideas are religion's gift that just keeps on giving.
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:2, Insightful)
A fundie who lived by the Bible would rape, kill, and enslave
I normally don't respond to flamebait, but someone modded you insightful. A fundie* who lived by the Bible would live like Mother Theresa, _really_ turning the other cheek, and living for love. Maybe you were reading straight through and didn't finish until you got to the game-changing peace and love hippie stuff?
*Assuming fundie means Fundamental Christian i.e. someone reliving the roots of Christianity, not Fundamental Pre-Biblical Reenactor i.e. someone reliving the historical time prior to when the Bible was written (when Israel was a wild and crazy, barely civilized place).
Re:How does this affect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientology is not a religion because it is a for profit organization that provides "mental health services" to its paying members. Recall that believes that its counsel is an appropriate and even superior replacement for psychotherapy.
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule #1 of internet discussions: if you're not sure about something, post it as a fact, and people will research the answer for you.
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that scientology started out with claims to be a "science of the mind", and applied for "religion" status with the IRS partly for tax reasons, and partly to protect themselves from being sued to pieces for their claimed miracle cures being not only fraudulent but downright dangerous. (The FDA banned them making medical claims for auditing and their fasting programs: they now instead solicit "testimonials" which the FDA does not automatically ban, as not being medical claims.) It was a very sudden switchover, and many younger members probably don't realize why and how it happened.
Selective memory is a common trait of cults and the nastier political movements: it's a human trait, as well, but the extent of it in a cult that does hypnotic sessions with a lie detector and which "reveals your past lives" and teaches you to control the re-incarnated space aliens that are really your thoughts and body (known as "thetans") has a lot of leverage over basically brainwashed people to reprogram with all sorts of strange ideas.
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:4, Insightful)
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
The difference between a religion and a cult is not particularly clear, but as a rule of thumb, normal religions don't cut people off from the world and cults do. I suspect that a lot of religions started out as cults and then went through a crucial stage of reconnecting with the world, which smoothed off some of the loopiness, but it seems that a majority of cults don't do that and instead collapse inwards (sometimes with attendant tragedy, alas). What's curious about Scientology is that they've been stuck at the stage between opening out and collapsing for quite a while and it's not clear which way the collective will of the faithful is going to go: if they open up (so becoming less obnoxious to everyone else) then they'll become a regular religion, but if they keep closed then they'll eventually implode.
It's up to them to pick which path to take. The rest of us can't take it for them; we can just force them to choose. (Now that they don't fill my letterbox with paper spam, I'm militantly indifferent as to what that choice is; they're not my religion.)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification.
Isn't the catch here that it would prohibit religions claiming they are the "true faith" and that all other faiths are heretical or blasphemous and thus vilifying religions other than their own? That being said I am all in favour of criticism of religions, if they want to believe they better suck it up and turn the other cheek or whatever. The freedom to express your opinion should be valued higher than the feelings of touchy religious people. Religions or religious institutions deserve no special privileges at all, and no special protection under the law.
Re:CoS v Anonymous (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:5, Insightful)
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
Do Scientologists become better people in general? If Scientology would be promoted to state religion, how long would that society last?
Stop bashing the story and start listening to the teachings. If you read the Bible, you'll realize none of it was supposed to be literal anyway.
Do you really think worshipping money (debt, actually) is a better alternative? Look around you: are the people you know, happy? Do they live a truly fulfilling life? Do you?
Why must I subsitute? Why must I worship something? I feel no need to worship neither gods nor assets, and why is it so obvious for you to do so? And please don't give me that nonsense about "if you read the Bible." Although I haven't read the entire book, I'll admit, I have read big proportions of it. I have also read interpretations of the Quran, and translations of the Talmud. I have also studied Zoroastrism and vaguely read the "teachings" of other religions. You say now that the Bible wasn't supposed to be literal, yet you have no idea how egocentric you are. Do you not realise that the common knowledge of your surroundings today differ vastly from those whom lived 1500 years ago? Do you not realise that the way you read the Bible differs significantly not only from your neighbour, but probably even more from your ancestors whom lived thousands of years ago?
/. there was recently a link to an article which showed the difference in fear of dying between religious people and non-religious people. The study showed that those who feared death were by far represented in the religous sector. Is this your definition of fulfilling life? Fearing death to such extent that you create your own fairytale in order to accept life? No friend, this is not living a fulfilling life and you simply cannot cheat life in that way. What is wrong with simply ceasing to exist upon death? Why do you feel the need to "live forever"? I accept my existance for what it is and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I love my life and when I die I hope I'm old enough to have grown tired from it. If I'm not, then so be it, there is nothing I can do other than try my best to prepare for tomorrow. I don't know if I live a truly fulfilling life, and I cannot judge that until I have lived it. If you think you can then, my friend, I would say you suffer from severe hubris. You are but a human, nothing more and nothing less, and there is nothing wrong with that. So tell me, who has the most sound view of life?
And about a fulfulling life. Right here on
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with their beliefs. It has to do with their practices. When someone joins the Church of Scientology, it is church rhetoric to alienate people from their old lives. That's classic cult behavior.
Compare that to joining your local Church or Mosque or Temple. You can come in for a session if you want, and leave too. You can join and then keep living your life otherwise the exact same.
Sure there are cult-esque sects of common religions, but as a whole they aren't very dangerous. Scientology has destroyed families.
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:3, Insightful)
not only that, but this sort of shit makes it harder for people who IRL actually are invested in genuine work to fight REAL hate crimes and religious and racial intolerance.
Sorry scientologists, we don't despise your members and we don't even despise your silly beliefs, we despise the evil things your organisation does to critics, ex members and dissenters.
Re:Scientology is a dangerous cult (Score:4, Insightful)
While obvious troll is obvious (GP, not the AC I'm responding to), it's important to always remember (and remind others) that it's never been about allowing all other religions to believe what they want while persecuting just Scientology for its beliefs, but rather has always been about Scientology's tactics towards members, former members, and anyone else who opposes such tactics.
rated 'funny' because... (Score:3, Insightful)
The comment was rated funny because:
1) We assume that everyone here is intelligent
And
2) There isn't a "Dumber than horse shit" rating
-Rick
Re:Not so fevered or alcoholized (Score:2, Insightful)
I must say that "Creating a Religion" is brilliant!
It worked, it demonstrated how incredibly stupid religions are (for some people), and the rest either get angry, or follow suit under the radar.
Morality aside, one should applaud the demonstration of it. It's a tremendous example of execution of a hypothesis: Creating a religion=rich.
Re:Critical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea - but anything associated with the CoS HAS to be bad. Really, what has that "church" contributed to anyone outside of the upper echelons of the "church"???
Re:As an Australian (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the media that likes to label small religions as cults, especially if they differ from the larger ones in some significant fashion or another.
Re:As an Australian (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe that. I have a hard time labeling any belief system as a cult if its members freely and openly offer to tell non-members everything that it believes. For instance, go into a Catholic or Baptist or Hindu or Islam or Buddhist place of worship. Ask the first person you see if they'll tell you what they believe. Chances are strong that they'll invite you in, answer any questions you have in as much depth as you request, give you a free copy of their holy book (if they have one), and offer you as much free literature as you can carry to take home and read on your own.
I wouldn't consider any of those a cult for that reason. You can find out up front exactly what they believe, and choose to join or walk away.
Now, try that experiment with the CoS. Or, better yet, don't.
Re:Dangerous reading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Much of that was said with a wink and a whisper. Don't steal from fellow believers. Don't kill fellow believers. Try to live the good life (within the societal norms as established in this religion). You could kill a non-believer. You could kill a thousand non-believers. I don't think it's unfair to say that religion was created primarily as a mechanism for social control. When you have ten thousand people, and you want them to do your bidding in that day and age, mysticism is pretty much the only instrument you have if you can't put together an army. Look at Europe when it was under heavy influence by the Pope? How does one man and a few thousand very rich nobles theologians get all the governments to do their bidding? Through religion of course. That's not to say that no one has ever benefitted in a truly non-selfish, non-harmful way from faith. But overall, religion is at its most powerful when it can be used to shepherd entire populations and enforce some type of group uniformity.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a practicing Christian I am in agreement that criticism of religion is important. If Jesus the Chippy was proved not to be the Son of God, then I would like to know now so I can become a Buddhist/atheist/pastafarian quick smart. In addition the ability to promote my views is also one I value. If you don't like my views, you are entitled to stop listening or even to reply with your points of conjecture. The CoS recommendations would limit this for me. I would not be able to be convinced by cunning argument because such argument would be "harassment". Neither would I be able to speak of the solace of having a direct line to Jesus to others in case they believe something different and considered this harassment.
Yrs
JAM